Hathaway v. United States of America

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 CONNER ANTHONY HATHAWAY, CASE NO. C22-0567JHC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REFERRING MOTION 11 v.

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 Defendant. 14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Conner Anthony Hathaway’s motion to 15 appoint counsel. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 16 in this action. See Dkt. # 4. 17 On April 27, 2022, Mr. Hathaway filed this action against the United States of America 18 as a pro se litigant. Dkt. #5. On June 1, 2022, the Court dismissed Mr. Hathaway’s complaint 19 without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and granted him leave to amend his 20 complaint within fourteen days of the order. Dkt. # 7. On June 13, 2022, Mr. Hathaway filed a 21 Motion for Extension, requesting an additional 21 days to amend his complaint. Dkt. #8. In the 22 motion, Mr. Hathaway included a section entitled, “Application for Court Appointed Counsel: 1 Merits of Claim,” which this Court construes as a motion for appointment of counsel. See 2 McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that the Court must

3 construe pro se pleadings liberally). The Court granted Mr. Hathaway an extension until July 6, 2022 to file his amended complaint. Dkt. # 9. 4 This District has implemented a plan for court-appointed representation of civil rights 5 litigants. The plan currently in effect requires the Court to assess a plaintiff’s case before 6 forwarding it to a pro bono screening committee for further review and a possible appointment 7 of pro bono counsel. See General Order No. 16-20, Section 3(c) (Dec. 8, 2020). The Court 8 assesses the plaintiff’s case to determine that it is not frivolous and that the plaintiff is financially 9 eligible. Id. Plaintiff’s submissions satisfy the court that there is an adequate basis to refer his 10 case to the Screening Committee. Dkt. # 4 (Order granting Mr. Hathaway leave to proceed IFP); 11 Dkt. #7 (“Mr. Hathaway does allege facts that may sufficiently plead a Bivens action, see, e.g., 12 Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), and therefore his complaint should not be dismissed with 13 prejudice.”). 14 Under Section 3(c) of the District’s pro bono plan, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the 15 Court to forward the operative complaint (Dkt. # 5), the motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 8), and the pleadings and documents filed to date to the Screening Committee. See General Order 16 No. 16-20, Section 3(c). The Court ORDERS the Screening Committee to review the case and 17 make a recommendation to the Court in accordance with the pro bono plan and the rules for the 18 pro bono panel on or before July 15, 2022. See id., Section 3(f). The Clerk shall RENOTE Mr. 19 Hathaway’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 8) for July 15, 2022, pending the Screening 20 Committee’s recommendation as to whether the Court should appoint counsel. See id. 21 22 1

Dated this 15th day of June, 2022. wha Chun 4 Sica oo United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22